Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Prestor Jon wrote:

In what way is " mass proliferation" of concealed carry paranoid? Mass proliferation is already the reality in Florida and every other shall issue state and reasonable may issue state. Every single Florida resident with a clean criminal record can get a concealed carry permit all they have to do is ask for one, that's it. If you want one you get one.

I want to retain my 2A rights and I'm a proponent of concealed carry so I have no problem with other law abiding citizens owning and carrying whether I know them or not. Crime is low, people are good, Liberty is awesome there's no paranoia needed. Is it paranoid to have a spare tire in your car, a fire extinguisher in your home, life preservers by a pool, etc? Anywhere you live in America the likelihood of you needing to shoot somebody in self defense is very low but that has nothing to do with your right to own guns and the respective ease in which you can concealed carry. Being prepared is a good thing.

The idea that everyone needs to carry guns to protect themselves is incredibly paranoid. Unless you live in a really bad area, it's not in any way nessisary. And the idea of arming the populous to stop mass shooters is laughable.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:

In what way is " mass proliferation" of concealed carry paranoid? Mass proliferation is already the reality in Florida and every other shall issue state and reasonable may issue state. Every single Florida resident with a clean criminal record can get a concealed carry permit all they have to do is ask for one, that's it. If you want one you get one.

I want to retain my 2A rights and I'm a proponent of concealed carry so I have no problem with other law abiding citizens owning and carrying whether I know them or not. Crime is low, people are good, Liberty is awesome there's no paranoia needed. Is it paranoid to have a spare tire in your car, a fire extinguisher in your home, life preservers by a pool, etc? Anywhere you live in America the likelihood of you needing to shoot somebody in self defense is very low but that has nothing to do with your right to own guns and the respective ease in which you can concealed carry. Being prepared is a good thing.

The idea that everyone needs to carry guns to protect themselves is incredibly paranoid. Unless you live in a really bad area, it's not in any way nessisary. And the idea of arming the populous to stop mass shooters is laughable.

There's a difference between preparedness and paranoia. And again, you don't need a justification to exercise a right and in shall issue states you don't need a justification to carry concealed. If you want to exercise your right then you can, that's why it's a right.

Prestor Jon wrote:

. If you want to exercise your right then you can, that's why it's a right.

Unless exercising your right is endangering the others' own rights. Having a right doesn't mean you can do whatever you want with it with no regards for others, especially when you become a threat for public order.

The question with concealed weapons is simple; how do you know if the people concealing weapons are bad guys or good guys? My answer would be you don't until it is too late.

Don't you agree that terrorists hiding weapons are a huge threat in themselves? How can you be sure the guy hiding weapons is not one? And how can you react to a surprise attack with your own gun if you can't see it coming?

I'm really astonished by some of the answers here. That someone is considering a 99% failure (and thus high risk of hurting innocent people with their own weapon) is an acceptable risk just to cover the single, rare case of reacting in time to an attack is beyond me.

But then, that's maybe because I'm not a gun owner myself and never had a situation when it would have helped me that much until now. Guess that's it's completely impossible in America.

 Sarouan wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:

. If you want to exercise your right then you can, that's why it's a right.

Unless exercising your right is endangering the others' own rights. Having a right doesn't mean you can do whatever you want with it with no regards for others, especially when you become a threat for public order.

The question with concealed weapons is simple; how do you know if the people concealing weapons are bag guys or good guys? My answer would be you don't until it is too late.

Don't you agree that terrorists hiding weapons are a huge threat in themselves? How can you be sure the guy hiding weapons is not one? And how can you react to a surprise attack with your own gun if you can't see it coming?

I'm really astonished by some of the answers here. That someone is considering a 99% failure (and thus high risk of hurting innocent people with their own weapon) is an acceptable risk just to cover the single, rare case of reacting in time to an attack is beyond me.

But then, that's maybe because I'm not a gun owner myself and never had a situation when it would have helped me that much until now. Guess that's it's completely impossible in America.

Nobody is saying that you can endanger or harm others. US citizens have the right to keep and bear arms and they can exercise that right for whatever reason they want, no justification is needed. That's just a simple fact.

You can't lawfully carry a concealed weapon in the US without a permit, except in Vermont and Alaska. Vermont doesn't require a permit to do it, neither does Alaska but they will still issue permits to help residents get reciprocity from other states. People with concealed carry permits are good guys because it's impossible to get a concealed carry permit without having a clean criminal record and if you commit a crime that prevents you from keeping your concealed carry license it gets taken away.

The number of terrorists in the US is infinitesimal and the number of law abiding gun owners is in the tens of millions. I trust the law abiding gun owners because I trust myself and the other law abiding gun owners I know. I wouldn't want anyone to restrict my rights and I don't want to restrict others either. The vast majority of people are good people and there's no reason to be afraid of good people, regardless of if they're armed or what they're armed with.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
A question for American dakka members:

Does becoming a crackshot or a very good shot, like any other skill, take hundreds of hours at the range, plus thousands of rounds expended in ammo? I'm willing to bet that it does...

It's whats know as "Perishable Skill":

Perishable skills are those skills that depreciate in effectiveness over time if they are not practiced

Like playing a musical instrument.

 whembly wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
A question for American dakka members:

Does becoming a crackshot or a very good shot, like any other skill, take hundreds of hours at the range, plus thousands of rounds expended in ammo? I'm willing to bet that it does...

It's whats know as "Perishable Skill":

Perishable skills are those skills that depreciate in effectiveness over time if they are not practiced

Like playing a musical instrument.

It also depends on what level of skill you want to maintain. I wish I had more time to practice and get better but staying proficient enough to hit a person sized target with all my shots from a distance of 30ft or less doesn't take that much practice time. If I wanted to be able to mozambique somebody at 25 yards that would take a lot more practice time than most gun owners ever do, be they civilian, LEO or .mil.

Thanks for the replies to my earlier point, but it's exactly the point I'm trying to make: your average gun owner, who's had some training, maybe shot a few cans in the back garden, is no substitute for professionals in these types of situation, concealed carry or no concealed carry.

And to be fair, nearly every gun owner on dakka makes this point, but the reaction in some quarters of the media has been if only there was somebody there with a gun to shoot the bad guy.

I'm not saying that good guys or gals haven't saved the day in the past, but your average citizen with a gun, shouldn't be seen as some kind of magic cure all.

You average citizen with a gun should also not be seen as as some kind of symptom...

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Thanks for the replies to my earlier point, but it's exactly the point I'm trying to make: your average gun owner, who's had some training, maybe shot a few cans in the back garden, is no substitute for professionals in these types of situation, concealed carry or no concealed carry.

And to be fair, nearly every gun owner on dakka makes this point, but the reaction in some quarters of the media has been if only there was somebody there with a gun to shoot the bad guy.

I'm not saying that good guys or gals haven't saved the day in the past, but your average citizen with a gun, shouldn't be seen as some kind of magic cure all.

No doubt and concealed carry shouldn't be perceived as some magic cure all for anything. IF a patron of Pulse had been carrying maybe that person would have been standing near the shooter when he walked in and could have dropped him in the first few moments or maybe the armed patron would have been one of the first people shot down in the initial ambush or maybe the armed patron would have been standing by an exit and would have just helped by holding the door and directing others to escape. There's no way to know. And in point of fact nobody could have been armed at Pulse because Florida law prohibits carrying in establishments that derive 50% or more of their business from alcohol sales.

The fact remains that bad people who decide to go out and commit mass murder keep killing people until somebody makes them stop and the fastest, easiest and surest way to make them stop is to shoot them. The sooner somebody puts down rabid dogs the fewer people get bit and the faster an area becomes safe again.

Let me submit, as someone who has been shot at before, that I prefer the ability to shoot back, EVEN if I am just trying to break contact. There is something a bit unnerving about a bullet going closely past you that causes a bit of a flinch/makes you duck/otherwise tends to distract you. Even if just trying to help yourself and others un-ass a bad situation, causing that type of a distraction gains you seconds to minutes which may make a big darned difference.

 CptJake wrote:
You average citizen with a gun should also not be seen as as some kind of symptom...

I'm not trying to ridicule brave American men and women putting their lives on the line when they take on bad guys, but the usual suspects in the US media have been shouting that if somebody had a gun, The Orlando tragedy could have been prevented.

They said that same gak during the Paris attacks, as if having a gun automatically lets you see a bomb concealed underneath somebody's jacket.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Prestor Jon wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Thanks for the replies to my earlier point, but it's exactly the point I'm trying to make: your average gun owner, who's had some training, maybe shot a few cans in the back garden, is no substitute for professionals in these types of situation, concealed carry or no concealed carry.

And to be fair, nearly every gun owner on dakka makes this point, but the reaction in some quarters of the media has been if only there was somebody there with a gun to shoot the bad guy.

I'm not saying that good guys or gals haven't saved the day in the past, but your average citizen with a gun, shouldn't be seen as some kind of magic cure all.

No doubt and concealed carry shouldn't be perceived as some magic cure all for anything. IF a patron of Pulse had been carrying maybe that person would have been standing near the shooter when he walked in and could have dropped him in the first few moments or maybe the armed patron would have been one of the first people shot down in the initial ambush or maybe the armed patron would have been standing by an exit and would have just helped by holding the door and directing others to escape. There's no way to know. And in point of fact nobody could have been armed at Pulse because Florida law prohibits carrying in establishments that derive 50% or more of their business from alcohol sales.

The fact remains that bad people who decide to go out and commit mass murder keep killing people until somebody makes them stop and the fastest, easiest and surest way to make them stop is to shoot them. The sooner somebody puts down rabid dogs the fewer people get bit and the faster an area becomes safe again.

I agree with this. Just saying there needs to be a balance between what is realistic and what is fantasy, when it comes to citizens defending themselves.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 CptJake wrote:
You average citizen with a gun should also not be seen as as some kind of symptom...

I'm not trying to ridicule brave American men and women putting their lives on the line when they take on bad guys, but the usual suspects in the US media have been shouting that if somebody had a gun, The Orlando tragedy could have been prevented.

They said that same gak during the Paris attacks, as if having a gun automatically lets you see a bomb concealed underneath somebody's jacket.

If people are saying that on the news they're disregarding the fact that Florida law prohibits anyone from carrying concealed in a business that derives 50% or more of their revenue from alcohol sales so none of the patrons were going to armed whether they had a concealed carry permit or not.

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:

Asterios wrote:
curious where this is at, since the reports have no record of an officer trying to stop the gunman. in fact the police waited 3 hours before trying to take him out while they tried to negotiate with him. so i'm curious where this officer came from, there is mention of an officer being shot and his Kevlar helmet saving him, but nothing about an officer stopping or trying to stop him before the shooting.

You could try the story I linked a couple of posts ago or any other story that explains what happened, since they all mention it:

http://www.cnn.com/2016/06/12/us/orlando-shooting-timeline/
http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/pulse-orlando-nightclub-shooting/os-pulse-shooting-tick-tock-20160613-story.html
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/orlando-shooting-pulse-nightclub-omar-mateen-timeline/
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/06/12/us/what-happened-at-the-orlando-nightclub-shooting.html
http://graphics.wsj.com/orlando-shooting/
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2016/06/12/three-horrific-hours-orlando-nightclub-massacre/85788574/

ok lets go with your first link:

An officer working extra duty in full uniform at the club responds. He and two officers nearby open fire on the shooter, and a gunbattle ensues.

what was the officers responding too? also it does not mention he did anything before the other officers showed up, me thinks part of the story got cut there. also anyone notice how all those stories do not match? the first one says the shooter went into the club after the battle with the officers, the other one says he went to the bathrooms and so on and so on.


ok now we look at this:

Shortly after 2 a.m., Sunday, June 12

Omar Mateen enters Pulse nightclub armed with an assault rifle, a handgun and multiple rounds of ammunition and opens fire.

An off-duty officer working security for the club opens fire and is soon joined by two other responding officers, but Mateen gets past them and pushes back toward the bathrooms in the rear of the club.

which indicates the officers showed up after the initial shooting (mind you the initial shooting took place over several minutes (as some victims said about the length of a song), the officer was working security, so it begs one to wonder how the shooter even got in the place to begin with, with a rifle, we are not talking a pistol but a pretty decent sized rifle, you would have to be blind as a bat, once that is taken into consideration its no wonder the officer couldn't hit the broad side of a barn from inside the barn. as toi lighting the stage put off so much lighting the whole front was lit up, where the initial shooting took place.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Thanks for the replies to my earlier point, but it's exactly the point I'm trying to make: your average gun owner, who's had some training, maybe shot a few cans in the back garden, is no substitute for professionals in these types of situation, concealed carry or no concealed carry.

And to be fair, nearly every gun owner on dakka makes this point, but the reaction in some quarters of the media has been if only there was somebody there with a gun to shoot the bad guy.

I'm not saying that good guys or gals haven't saved the day in the past, but your average citizen with a gun, shouldn't be seen as some kind of magic cure all.

the shooting took place over several minutes, not seconds, but minutes, with the shooter walking around shooting people on the ground and such. this wasn't something that happened in a few seconds, this took minutes, in that time someone could have shot the shooter

Prestor Jon wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 CptJake wrote:
You average citizen with a gun should also not be seen as as some kind of symptom...

I'm not trying to ridicule brave American men and women putting their lives on the line when they take on bad guys, but the usual suspects in the US media have been shouting that if somebody had a gun, The Orlando tragedy could have been prevented.

They said that same gak during the Paris attacks, as if having a gun automatically lets you see a bomb concealed underneath somebody's jacket.

If people are saying that on the news they're disregarding the fact that Florida law prohibits anyone from carrying concealed in a business that derives 50% or more of their revenue from alcohol sales so none of the patrons were going to armed whether they

Actually an unarmed person took down a shooter in a Seattle school. so me thinks that is why the press is wondering why didn't somebody do something or did they?

So when our would be 'good guy' opens fire, what do other potential 'good guys' do?

Assume there's multiple bad guys? Magically know who's shooting people and who's shooting 'bad guys'.

If this get's drawn out, what do LEO's assume?

And when you've got armed 'good guys', what's to stop them having a bad day and becoming a 'bad guy'?

 Mozzyfuzzy wrote:
So when our would be 'good guy' opens fire, what do other potential 'good guys' do?

Assume there's multiple bad guys? Magically know who's shooting people and who's shooting 'bad guys'.

If this get's drawn out, what do LEO's assume?

And when you've got armed 'good guys', what's to stop them having a bad day and becoming a 'bad guy'?

you mean like some Cops have done? this line you are going down has a way of backfiring on you if you continue down this path, right now this country is reeling from several riots still because of police shooting people.

 Mozzyfuzzy wrote:
So when our would be 'good guy' opens fire, what do other potential 'good guys' do?

Assume there's multiple bad guys? Magically know who's shooting people and who's shooting 'bad guys'.

If this get's drawn out, what do LEO's assume?

And when you've got armed 'good guys', what's to stop them having a bad day and becoming a 'bad guy'?

If there is only one attacker, that person is the one trying to murder everyone. The good guys are only targeting the attacker so if the attacker goes down the shooting stops. When the shooting stops none of the good guys keep shooting because they no longer have a target. If there are multiple attackers murdering people then the good guys are the ones shooting at the guys murdering people.

You can construct hypotheticial specifics of extremely rare occurences however you want. The fundamental fact remains that bad guys who start murder sprees keep murdering people until somebody stops them from doing so. More people in a position to stop a murder spree increases the odds of the murder spree stopping sooner rather than later. The sooner the murder spree stops the fewer people get hurt. That's a good thing. It doesn't matter who stops the murder spree, civilian, LEO, whomever, the important thing is that somebody has to stop it because otherwise the muderer keeps killing for as long as he/she wants.

Prestor Jon wrote:

You can't lawfully carry a concealed weapon in the US without a permit, except in Vermont and Alaska. Vermont doesn't require a permit to do it, neither does Alaska but they will still issue permits to help residents get reciprocity from other states. People with concealed carry permits are good guys because it's impossible to get a concealed carry permit without having a clean criminal record and if you commit a crime that prevents you from keeping your concealed carry license it gets taken away.

Sure, when committing a crime his license gets taken away, but his victims won't raise back from the dead. And of course, true criminals and terrorists don't really care about legality. Especially the ones who intend to die and just take as many people as possible with them.

I think you aren't naive to believe bad people can't get around the laws to easily gain a gun for their evil purposes, especially when so many are available nearly everywhere. There's always someone who will not be looking too much about the past of the guy who is willing to buy from them.

The number of terrorists in the US is infinitesimal and the number of law abiding gun owners is in the tens of millions. I trust the law abiding gun owners because I trust myself and the other law abiding gun owners I know. I wouldn't want anyone to restrict my rights and I don't want to restrict others either. The vast majority of people are good people and there's no reason to be afraid of good people, regardless of if they're armed or what they're armed with.

I see your point. But then, why having the need to carry any gun on you at all times if you genuinely think the vast majority are good people that you don't have to be afraid of? Just for the rare case you meet the bad guy and that you will absolutely need a gun to get out of that situation? And how are you sure the bad guy will give you enough time to use your gun at all?

Do you mean you need your gun to feel safe, even if the chances to a really bad encounter needing a gun to resolve are admittingly low?

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

I'm not saying that good guys or gals haven't saved the day in the past, but your average citizen with a gun, shouldn't be seen as some kind of magic cure all.

I agree. Guns don't solve everything. Owning one is a huge responsability, to me. Trouble is, when it becomes a casual thing, people tend to forget they are still dangerous. The fact there are so many tragedies in America in domestic accidents involving a gun not being handled carefully is not a hazard.

 Mozzyfuzzy wrote:
So when our would be 'good guy' opens fire, what do other potential 'good guys' do?

1. Assume there's multiple bad guys? Magically know who's shooting people and who's shooting 'bad guys'.

2. If this get's drawn out, what do LEO's assume?

3. And when you've got armed 'good guys', what's to stop them having a bad day and becoming a 'bad guy'?

1. Most conceal carried permit holders have some ( in some cases perhaps little) training. In my case, I would try to understand where the initial shooting was coming from and who they were targeting. In Orlando it would be clear Guy With Rifle is capping anyone he can. I would also see if others were shooting at anyone, or engaging Guy With Rifle, and base my decision on that. I assume most other folks who carry would go through a similar decision cycle. In my experience those who carry are pretty serious about not screwing up and getting into trouble.

2. Cops come into an active shooter situation YELLING who they are, often preceded by flash bangs. That would be my signal to lay flat hands visible and empty (dropping my pistol near me) and let the cops shoot it out/sort it out. Everyone there (armed or not) should expect to be zip stripped and pulled to safety/custody until each individual is cleared by the cops.

3. Stupid argument for limiting anyone's rights. Become a 'bad guy' and break the law, you pay for it. Use a weapon when you do it and the penalties are rightfully severe.

 Sarouan wrote:

I see your point. But then, why having the need to carry any gun on you at all times if you genuinely think the vast majority are good people that you don't have to be afraid of? Just for the rare case you meet the bad guy and that you will absolutely need a gun to get out of that situation? And how are you sure the bad guy will give you enough time to use your gun at all?

Do you mean you need your gun to feel safe, even if the chances to a really bad encounter needing a gun to resolve are admittingly low?

like me many probably think you don't really need something till you do and better you have it then to need it and not have it.

Asterios wrote:

like me many probably think you don't really need something till you do and better you have it then to need it and not have it.

That I can honestly understand. I know a colleague at work who has the permit to own one and she keeps it in her house because she feels safer that way. She's completely terrified at the idea of being robbed; even if it never happened to her, she hears so many stories in some media that she eventually gets scared. She isn't trained to use it, though. I suspect her case isn't uncommon in America as well - certainly even more, since it's easier to get and own a weapon there than here in Belgium, where it's strictly regulated.

 Sarouan wrote:

Asterios wrote:

like me many probably think you don't really need something till you do and better you have it then to need it and not have it.

That I can honestly understand. I know a colleague at work who has the permit to own one and she keeps it in her house because she feels safer that way. She's completely terrified at the idea of being robbed; even if it never happened to her, she hears so many stories in some media that she eventually gets scared. She isn't trained to use it, though. I suspect her case isn't uncommon in America as well - certainly even more, since it's easier to get and own a weapon there than here in Belgium, where it's strictly regulated.

when it comes to gun ownership I can never stress how much a person needs to be proficient with one let alone fire one, i've seen too many gun owners who never fired their weapon nor learned how to clean one let alone fire one, gun classes and gun ranges are there for a reason, so if you ever do need to use your gun you know what you are doing.

 Sarouan wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:

You can't lawfully carry a concealed weapon in the US without a permit, except in Vermont and Alaska. Vermont doesn't require a permit to do it, neither does Alaska but they will still issue permits to help residents get reciprocity from other states. People with concealed carry permits are good guys because it's impossible to get a concealed carry permit without having a clean criminal record and if you commit a crime that prevents you from keeping your concealed carry license it gets taken away.

Sure, when committing a crime his license gets taken away, but his victims won't raise back from the dead. And of course, true criminals and terrorists don't really care about legality. Especially the ones who intend to die and just take as many people as possible with them.

I think you aren't naive to believe bad people can't get around the laws to easily gain a gun for their evil purposes, especially when so many are available nearly everywhere. There's always someone who will not be looking too much about the past of the guy who is willing to buy from them.

The number of terrorists in the US is infinitesimal and the number of law abiding gun owners is in the tens of millions. I trust the law abiding gun owners because I trust myself and the other law abiding gun owners I know. I wouldn't want anyone to restrict my rights and I don't want to restrict others either. The vast majority of people are good people and there's no reason to be afraid of good people, regardless of if they're armed or what they're armed with.

I see your point. But then, why having the need to carry any gun on you at all times if you genuinely think the vast majority are good people that you don't have to be afraid of? Just for the rare case you meet the bad guy and that you will absolutely need a gun to get out of that situation? And how are you sure the bad guy will give you enough time to use your gun at all?

Do you mean you need your gun to feel safe, even if the chances to a really bad encounter needing a gun to resolve are admittingly low?

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

I'm not saying that good guys or gals haven't saved the day in the past, but your average citizen with a gun, shouldn't be seen as some kind of magic cure all.

I agree. Guns don't solve everything. Owning one is a huge responsability, to me. Trouble is, when it becomes a casual thing, people tend to forget they are still dangerous. The fact there are so many tragedies in America in domestic accidents involving a gun not being handled carefully is not a hazard.

You can't get a carry permit without a clean criminal record. If you haven't done anything wrong you get to exercise your right to own firearms. There's no reason to strip rights away from people that have done nothing wrong. Obviously criminals won't respect the law and if they really want to illegally obtain a gun they'll find a way to get one. That's true everywhere even in countries and places with very strict gun control. The fact that criminals can always find a way to illegally obtain guns is just another reason why law abiding citizens should retain the right to lawfully own guns.

You don't need to be afraid of anything to own a gun. Some of my guns are for self defense, some are for hunting, some are for target practice and some are for fun. You don't need a justification to exercise a right all you need is a desire to do so.

sure ban all guns and we will be seeing attacks like this in the US which happened in China a couple years ago (you know where guns are banned I believe?

http://news.sky.com/story/1219600/china-stabbing-33-killed-in-station-massacre

like I said if people want to kill people they will find a way.

How many times a year does China have mass satbbings on average, what's the average number of stabbed?

Assuming that the same number of mass shootings then translate into mass stabbings, would more or less people be injured/die?

How does China compare to other nations with gun bans? What is the rest of it's crime statistics like?

Etc etc, until you can reach a conclusion that isn't, this one time last year x country had a mass y.

Asterios wrote:
sure ban all guns and we will be seeing attacks like this in the US which happened in China a couple years ago (you know where guns are banned I believe?

http://news.sky.com/story/1219600/china-stabbing-33-killed-in-station-massacre

like I said if people want to kill people they will find a way.

And that would be an improvement as less people died in that attack. Progress!

Also, the fact that you had to go back a couple of years to find something even remotely similar in body count is kinda telling.

 Mozzyfuzzy wrote:
How many times a year does China have mass satbbings on average, what's the average number of stabbed?

Assuming that the same number of mass shootings then translate into mass stabbings, would more or less people be injured/die?

How does China compare to other nations with gun bans?

well here is another one from the same year:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/oct/01/at-least-50-reported-dead-in-september-attack-as-china-celebrates-xinjiang so that is 2 mass stabbings in one year.

as to gun laws private citizens are not allowed to own

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

Asterios wrote:
sure ban all guns and we will be seeing attacks like this in the US which happened in China a couple years ago (you know where guns are banned I believe?

http://news.sky.com/story/1219600/china-stabbing-33-killed-in-station-massacre

like I said if people want to kill people they will find a way.

And that would be an improvement as less people died in that attack. Progress!

Also, the fact that you had to go back a couple of years to find something even remotely similar in body count is kinda telling.

actually just looked up mass stabbings that was just one of them that popped up. and the other link had more dead and more injured then the recent nightclub shooting.

also from 2010 to 2012 China also experienced a lot of school stabbings: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/School_attacks_in_China_(2010%E2%80%9312)

anybody seeing a pattern here? replace knife with gun and what do all these attacks sound like?

Prestor Jon wrote:

You don't need to be afraid of anything to own a gun. Some of my guns are for self defense, some are for hunting, some are for target practice and some are for fun. You don't need a justification to exercise a right all you need is a desire to do so.

Of course you don't need to, but I think fear is a factor that shouldn't be ignored in the will of owning a gun. Otherwise, you wouldn't justify it for the cases of self defense.

I do understand that you are very attached to your rights and that you want to defend them. It's just that I feel weapons should be treated more carefully. When I read some reactions or articles, it looks like guns aren't thought like dangerous tools. They became such a casual part of people's life that it's like they're not paying much attention. It's like becoming an automatism, for example a woman taking a gun in her handbag like she would with her keys or cigarettes. And that's when they become really dangerous.

IMHO, that's why regulation is important. I don't think America will get rid of all its weapons, but having weapons as a casual thing you can buy in a Wallmart make it possible to lose sight of their nature. Only trained people who know what they are dealing with and take special care of them should be handling those, that's how I feel. I don't think it's the case everywhere right now in America.

 Sarouan wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:

You don't need to be afraid of anything to own a gun. Some of my guns are for self defense, some are for hunting, some are for target practice and some are for fun. You don't need a justification to exercise a right all you need is a desire to do so.

Of course you don't need to, but I think fear is a factor that shouldn't be ignored in the will of owning a gun. Otherwise, you wouldn't justify it for the cases of self defense.

I do understand that you are very attached to your rights and that you want to defend them. It's just that I feel weapons should be treated more carefully. When I read some reactions or articles, it looks like guns aren't thought like dangerous tools. They became such a casual part of people's life that it's like they're not paying much attention. It's like becoming an automatism, like taking a woman taking a gun in her bag like she would with her keys or cigarettes. And that's when they become really dangerous.

IMHO, that's why regulation is important. I don't think America will get rid of all its weapons, but having weapons as a casual thing you can buy in a Wallmart make it possible to lose sight of their nature. Only trained people who know what they are dealing with and take special care of them should be handling those, to me.

no Walmarts by me sell guns, as to guns yes they are tools and you should respect and understand your tools, to have a CC permit in California you have to go to classes on use and such for your firearm, furthermore as shown in the above links I gave knives can be dangerous tools in the wrong hands too, anything can be used for wrong doing.

 Sarouan wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:

You don't need to be afraid of anything to own a gun. Some of my guns are for self defense, some are for hunting, some are for target practice and some are for fun. You don't need a justification to exercise a right all you need is a desire to do so.

Of course you don't need to, but I think fear is a factor that shouldn't be ignored in the will of owning a gun. Otherwise, you wouldn't justify it for the cases of self defense.

I do understand that you are very attached to your rights and that you want to defend them. It's just that I feel weapons should be treated more carefully. When I read some reactions or articles, it looks like guns aren't thought like dangerous tools. They became such a casual part of people's life that it's like they're not paying much attention. It's like becoming an automatism, for example a woman taking a gun in her handbag like she would with her keys or cigarettes. And that's when they become really dangerous.

IMHO, that's why regulation is important. I don't think America will get rid of all its weapons, but having weapons as a casual thing you can buy in a Wallmart make it possible to lose sight of their nature. Only trained people who know what they are dealing with and take special care of them should be handling those, to me.

You don't need any justification. In that regard any reason to own one is valid because you don't need one in the first place.

The more you do something the better at it you get. The longer you own a gun and the more you practice with it the more ingrained proper safety becomes. The more knowledgable and familiar you are with guns the more you respect them and handle them properly. I would much rather be around armed long time gun owners than new people but I have no qualms being around any lawfully armed citizen.

Prestor Jon wrote:
The more you do something the better at it you get. The longer you own a gun and the more you practice with it the more ingrained proper safety becomes. The more knowledgable and familiar you are with guns the more you respect them and handle them properly. I would much rather be around armed long time gun owners than new people but I have no qualms being around any lawfully armed citizen.

that is the one thing I would like to see more gun safety laws forcing gun owners to have training and safety lessons on owning a gun since I believe that would do well on reducing accidental shootings.